Experience is the food of the mind.
Research and observation is the existence of the universe.
Nothing is out there without the observer.
Fine if the universe exists without the observer. For whom does it exist? You can't cut the universe off from the observer. After all, that's why we're here, for the universe to exist. This universe out there outside our brain doesn't have the form that our brain presents to us. There is no light and colors without the eye, hearing without the ear, taste without the tongue, touch without the body. Outside of our brain there is only frequency energy that without the conversion of frequencies from our brain into something else none of this would exist. Without a brain we can't even perceive energy. We live in a matrix of our senses. We are the very nature of energy, which lives through us.
Okay, let's get to the hard part. Do you at least understand that the world we live in doesn't exist without your senses? So without us how can there be anything imaginary that our brain creates? Fine the frequencies exist, but who do they exist for?
What is it, and where does energy come from; which designs, constructs and moves frequencies molecules atoms everything? Is it God?
Ioannis Lymperis
Yes, God Almighty, the Creator of the universe and the Creator of everything. Yes, He is God, besides whom there is no god, the Ever-Living, the Self-Subsisting. No year takes hold of Him nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth. Who is there that can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is before them and behind them, and they comprehend nothing of His knowledge except what He wills. His Throne extends over the heavens and the earth and He does not turn Him away. He preserved them, and He is the Most High, the Great.
Rasha A Waheeb
Nothing is random
Just as a computer program needs its programmer, a perfect universe needs the God to build it.
Many are interested to know where we go when we die,
few where we come from.
And very few about our place in the universe.
Ioannis Lymperis
Samy Elhadi Oussadou
thank God a lot who created us and the universe
there is no God but Allah‘❤️
many thanks for your wonderful responses.
I do not consider whether it is God or Allah
Every man believes what expresses him.
I examine whether everything in the universe happened by chance or whether there is a creator.
And for me there is a creator. It doesn't matter what we call him.
Dear Professor Ioannis Lymperis , you are making a very interesting and ingenious solipsistic assertion. I also believe in Creation. And yet, differently from you, I believe that there is a real world that is real not only independently of my awareness (I prefer this term instead of “brain”), but also does not involve frequencies of energy alone, but also light, colors and all the rest. Here's my position: all there is can be nothing but real. And I question your rationale: how can you tell that all there is is energy frequencies and only that? Well, you can tell it because you have a brain, eyes, ears, and plenty of instruments that allow you to be aware of those frequencies. Bearing this in mind and according to the reasoning underlying your argument, why not just assume that there is nothing at all (not even these frequencies)? Your argument would become valid, but the message conveyed by it would impose a nonsensical proposition, and hence you need to concede that the frequencies do indeed exist so that there is any sense at all in such a view and in every act of communication (are we not communicating, even if imperfectly?). Assuming that such frequencies exist, your argument becomes invalid, for you just know about such frequencies because you are somehow aware of them inside your “matrix” as you called it. So why not admit that all there is is real, in one way or another?
Dear Robert Junqueira
Everything exists after we have consciousness. And the electronic computer that we communicate with exists.
But its function depends on energy.
Without energy there is nothing.
The computer needs its manufacturer and its programmer.
It wasn't by chance, without its manufacturer, that such a high-tech machine was made.
Man's dna contains great technology and was made by a superior technological force.
In essence what we are looking for within religions is this super scientist who designed and built the universe.
It makes sense. This logic connects science to the superscientist.
But everything even dreams need technology and energy to exist.
That's my point of view.
Dear Professor Doctor Lymperis,
reality exists before and after we have consciousness.
And the electronic computer that we communicate with exists both as a thing (physically) and as an object (in our awareness).
This is my point of view about the first issue. About the other issue, i.e., God:
What makes me think that the reality of God (as more than just an object) "makes sense" for more than strictly personal reasons is that there must have been a first cause. Should the Big Bang be taken for granted, what caused it? God, making it the first effect in the history of the universe.
Dear Robert Junqueira
Many are interested in where we are going and few in where we are coming from.
Many less about our place in the universe.
What reality are you talking about? The one we were before? The one we are now? Or the one we go to when we die?
The big bang needs energy to happen. Where did so much energy get concentrated?
Man is always looking outward without looking inward.
There are questions that are on our minds but we don't ask them because they are well judged and slowly coming out. One of these questions is whether physics can meet and agree with metaphysics.
Physics does not agree that they can meet somewhere. On the contrary, quantum mechanics says the opposite. Quantum mechanics unlike classical physics says that there is no reality unless the observer if consciousness let's say the mind does not take part in the phenomenon.
That is, the phenomenon is not alone but has to do with the observer. Basically the universe would not exist if we were not there to observe it. Or at least you can't cut the observer out of the universe.
We have the wrong impression sometimes about many things because that's where our senses take us which tell us that the universe is classical, that is, it's external and has a beginning... but the reality we don't see ( what we put under the carpet ) is that space is infinite time is infinite and has nothing to do with the theory of relativity.
Infinity is beyond even our imagination.
Quantum mechanics comes along today and tells us that if this is not all 100% wrong then it does not represent total truth. It's partly right. That doesn't mean that these two poles won't meet. How will they meet?..... by complementarity. Classical physics is part of the universe but it is not the whole.
O believers in God Almighty and in His greatness, majesty, and power, thank you very much for your wonderful responses :)
O believers in God Almighty and in His greatness, majesty, and power, thank you very much for your wonderful responses :)
I notice some kind of return to Spinoza (Hisham Shakhatreth) stressed by the powers of his time ;)
As far as the "outside us" question I am more inclined to the Robert Junqueira's formulation, notwithstanding the difficulty to find an observation point for thesis holding that reality precedes and survives to ours perceptions. I believe in it. I am not sure to can prove it.
1) O OUTRO, OS OUTROS (A SOCIEDADE, FAMÍLIA, ESCOLA, TRABALHO, RELIGIÃO(?)); 2) O PLANETA, NOSSO CHÃO, NOSSA CASA TERRA (outubro de 2023 foi decretado hoje, 9-11-23, o mês mais quente em todo mundo!);
3) O COSMOS, OS TRÊS; ETERNAMENTE. EM ESTUDO CONSTANTE.
Professor Doctor Manuel Correia , I tend to agree with you. This is about belief, and all discourse about it does not aim at proving what cannot be proved, but rather at testing how we think, since our belief may be reasonably or unreasonably expressed, more or less coherently. Apparently, one cannot rightfully criticize a belief, but one can legitimately criticize a discourse that expresses the belief, or rather the rationale that lies beneath it or that arises therefrom.
IS THERE A CONNECTION BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION?
Heisenberg said "The first sip from the glass of science leads you away from God, but at the bottom of the glass He is there waiting for you."
Einstein said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".
In essence, what we are looking for in religions is this super scientist who designed and built the universe.
It makes sense. This logic connects science to the superscientist.
Dear Ioannis,
for me, Heisenberg suggests that this look is addressed to the courage of having no answer but questions,
Françoise
What is “out there” depends on what you CHOOSE to believe based on what you have experienced in life, such as, the classroom, the textbooks, your teachers and friends. How you choose depends on WHAT WORKS BEST FOR YOU. You can believe that there is a physical world or you can believe that what is “out there” is a fiction of your Mind or Brain or Both. What works best for me is to believe there is a physical world and that the “Mind” is only a term we use, superfluously in my opinion, to summarize the physical brain and it’s physical processes. Again, it reduces to what you CHOOSE to believe and how you choose depends on WHAT WORKS BEST FOR YOU.
Among experiences that DETERMINE our beliefs, I inadvertently omitted family. Of course, today, experience includes television and the internet.
You might want to try G-d helps those who help themselves (hopefully with decent behavior)
What about the issue of resonance?
All living things resonate at similar or coherent frequencies; therefore, species will eventually share resonance. Resonance is a term closely related to awareness, interregional connections or disconnection in the brain, and the integratory function of the brain. It can describe synchrony, vibration, or harmony more broadly. The synchronized electrical cycles of the brain have similar resonance patterns. We may actually connect on that basis, but we are certainly part of the energetics of this planet at least and perhaps that of the universe.
Our senses make a view into the world from the perspective of a body, and a camera can take real pictures of this world including real colors based upon views that exist before its lens(es). The camera can be operated by a drone and it's pictures can be analyzed by an AI, so there is no doubt that the observer paradigm is somewhat of a fallacy, including the discourse subtending from the "Double Slit Experiment"
Article A Very Common Fallacy in Quantum Mechanics: Superposition, D...
although this may be easier going
https://medium.com/science-first/the-double-slit-experiment-demystified-disproving-the-quantum-consciousness-connection-ee8384a50e2f
The materials, processes, life forms, and energies from remote bodies that are not necessarily in the view provide nearly endless rearrangements, whether we are present or not present to enjoy or supervise the proceedings.
Accordingly immense forest fires may start far away from where people reside, and eventually we smell them at a distance and cough and suffer the clouding impacts of such things which really are happening far beyond our views.
We can consider these facts and realize that the flames probably began with lightning, or even by a crow or hawk flying a burning stick from a fire into a dry field or distant tree. We can conceive of the planet spinning first one side to the sun then the other providing views and energy to keep things rolling.
I do not think we are required to be here to observe or supervise, and if we do not clean up our act we will not continue to be here, but the things that do happen now and in the future are real enough in themselves without us observing them and adding our interpretations to all that is and was.
Lastly I must add, that if we don't seem to understand everything all at once, it is not a fault of our bodies and minds, but more of the same realistic proposition, that what we experience (and come to know) is related to the views we can have from our bodies and minds that are limited to a small volume existing and interacting in an ever expanding universe.
Dear Dr. Jerry Waese
If a camera can become an observer it can never be answered. And the question remains. Everything can happen without the observer. But without an observer possessing experience and mind, for whom do all these things happen and exist?
In this sense without experience there is nothing. The observer acquires experience first to be able to observe that this is white and the other is black. Without experience there is no observer.
When you smell the smoke of the fire and think then you are an observer.
I don't have the audacity to think the fire stinks for me
Let's not take everything so personally
Dear Dr. Jerry Waese
Misunderstanding in translation I didn't mean to offend you. Sorry for my English.
no problem,
there are really many many non-human creatures that have to deal directly with every forest fire anyway, so whether we see the flames or not, they definitely have an effect, and some of the creatures certainly are conscious of the effects of fire at least for a brief interval.
“What is out there outside our head?”
- the really scientific answer can be, and is, given only in framework of Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 really philosophical “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper is
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
So mere see the linked paper, here only note that outside our head there exist absolutely infinite “number” of other things that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set.
Including whole Matter – and everything in Matter, including, say, practically material humans’ bodies and heads, and fundamentally non-material consciousnesses that reside partially in the bodies and [mostly] heads, are the Set’s elements,
- and so, say, the consciousnesses are fundamentally outside the heads, which exist in Matter’s utmost universal 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z), and really exist in, first of all, some universal for all consciousnesses space, dimensions of which aren’t known now.
More about what are “Information”, “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, and so “Life”, see the linked paper.
Cheers
So what we call colour is not colour but frequencies like sound and our brain makes colours and sounds. Generally we live in a simulation of our brain and what exists outside our head is something else, another universe. Outside our head there are no colors and sounds but only frequencies.
Yet information has no mass, no energy and yet it is the greatest power of the universe, since the language of the universe is mathematics which also has no mass and energy but has power because it is a filler. Man is different from other animals on the planet because he solves equations. A lot of information makes experience and without experience nothing exists outside of our minds Why if there is something out there without experience without the observer who is it for?
well we do have complex body feeling that is associated with each color, and it becomes more numinous with each experience of that color, and that could be hundreds or thousands of times each day.
it's not that words are insufficient to explain the phenomena of mind, they are just way too slow to explain any of it completely in real time.
we have learned to name sensations from our sensory translator. Although physiologist, I can but do not use knowledge of transduction processes to improve my sensations. I have a memory in which associations were considered to help providing meaning to sensations. And these dimensions are best provided by artists, painters and authors. Expressing the detailed processes takes time and support different goals. The goals' understanding and translation in words is in the same time an additional burden or a facilitation.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Agriculture
- Soil Science